SUBMISSION TO SHDC RESEARCH AND …...proposed amendments by the SHDC and brought into alignment with the Guidelines for Assessment of a Doctoral Thesis and a Master’s Dissertation

SUBMISSION TO SHDC

Faculty RESEARCH AND INTERNATIONALISATION

Department UJ Postgraduate School

Contact persons Prof S Motala Tel no 27 (0)11-559-3781 Email address [email protected]

ITEM TITLE Revision: Higher Degrees Administration

RECOMMENDATION: • It is recommended that the updated Higher Degrees Administration document, as approved by

Senate and in terms of the further proposed amendments, be implemented.MOTIVATION: The Higher Degrees Administration: Structures and Processes was subjected to a review process over a period of time, in consultation with all faculties.

Discussion After the Higher Degrees Administration: Structures and Processes, as currently approved by Senate was distributed to all faculties, feedback was received from CBE, FEBE, FHS, FH, FL and FS. These comments were consolidated and the recommendations were reviewed and integrated. A SHDC review committee was established to consider the recommendations. Recommended changes were subsequently made to the Higher Degrees Administration: Structures and Processes, as approved at Senate of 17 November 2016.

The Higher Degrees Administration: Structures and Processes, was amended in accordance with proposed amendments by the SHDC and brought into alignment with the Guidelines for Assessment of a Doctoral Thesis and a Master’s Dissertation and was approved by the SHDC of 9 October 2018 and 6 March 2019 respectively, and recommended to Senate for approval. Final changes have been made in line with Senate requests and a final review. As a summary the final changes was in relation to the term and conditions of the word “abeyance”. These changes are shown in red in the attached document. Annexure(s) (if any) Annexure A: Updated HAD in terms of proposed revisions by the Senate

of 14 March 2019

Date of implementation With immediate effect

1. SHDC 5 September 2018 2. SHDC 9 October 2018 3. SHDC 6 March 2019 4. SENATE 14 March 2019 5 SHDC 11 April 2019

Prof Motala 1 April 2019

30

SHDC.125/2019(3)

Higher Degrees Administration: Structures and Processes Document number Custodian/Responsible executive

Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Research & Internationalisation

Responsible division Postgraduate School Status Amended approved by Senate on 23 March 2009

Amended approved by Senate on 17 November 2010 Amended approved by Senate on 17 November 2016 Amended approved by Senate on 14 March 2019

Approved by Senate Date of approval 17 November 2016 Amendments 1st set of amendments approved by Senate 23 March

2009 2nd set of amendments approved by Senate 17 November 2010 3rd set of Amendments presented to Senate on 17 November 2016

Dates of amendments 23 March 2009; 17 November 2010; 17 November 2016; 14 March 2019

Review date November 2022

Related documents UJ documents

(e.g. Policies, Regulations, Guidelines, Contracts) • Higher Degrees Policy• Faculty Regulations• Academic Regulations• Academic Programme Policy• Code of Academic and Research

Ethics.• Guidelines Authorship: Research

Output• UJ Guidelines on theses or

dissertations in article or essay

Other (e.g. Legislation, DoE and HEQC directives and guidelines)

• HEQC Institutional Audit Criteria• HEQC Guidelines for Best Practice in

Research Management• Higher Education Qualifications

Framework

31

SHDC.125/2019(3)

format • Policy on Intellectual Property • Plagiarism Policy • Supervisor Student Agreement • Policy: Student Plagiarism • Policy: Recognition of Prior Learning • Policy: Access and Selection • Occupational Health and Safety

Policy

Stakeholders affected by this document (units and divisions who should be familiar with it):

• Faculty Administrators • Central Academic Administration • Academic Departments • Higher Degree Students

Website address of this document: Intranet

32

SHDC.125/2019(3)

CONTENTS

FOREWORD ................................................................................................................... 4

DEFINITION OF TERMS ................................................................................................ 5

PART A: ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ..................... 7

1 A SUMMARY OF COMMITTEES AND STRUCTURES AND THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES .......................................................... 7

PART B: REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES AS THEY APPLY TO THE STUDY CYCLE OF A HIGHER DEGREE STUDENT ..................................................... 8

2 THE ADMISSION PHASE. ................................................................................ 8 3 THE CONTACT AND APPROVAL PHASE ....................................................... 8 4 FULL-TIME VERSUS PART-TIME REGISTRATION, RESIDENCY AND

INTERRUPTION OF STUDIES ........................................................................ 9 5 ETHICS CLEARANCE .................................................................................... 10 6 HEALTH AND SAFETY .................................................................................. 10 7 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ......................................................................... 11 8 THE STUDY PHASE....................................................................................... 11 9 CHANGE OF TITLE OF A DISSERTATION OR THESIS ............................... 12 10 CONVERSION/TRANSFER IN REGISTRATION FROM A MASTER’S TO A

DOCTORAL DEGREE ................................................................................... 12 11 DISPUTE RESOLUTION DURING THE STUDY PERIOD ............................. 14 12 APPOINTMENT OF ASSESSORS ................................................................. 14 13 SUBMISSION OF MINOR DISSERTATION, DISSERTATION OR THESIS TO

THE FACULTY FOR ASSESSMENT ............................................................. 15 14 DISSEMINATION OF DOCUMENTS TO ASSESSORS AND

SUPERVISOR(S) ........................................................................................... 18 15 POSSIBLE OUTCOMES RECOMMENDED BY THE INDIVIDUAL

ASSESSORS ................................................................................................. 18 16 MANAGING AND PROCESSING THE ASSESSMENT RESULTS IN THE

FACULTY ....................................................................................................... 19 17 FINALISING OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE

REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................... 25 APPENDIX 1 - FORMS AND DOCUMENTS ............................................................. 28 APPENDIX 2 – FLOW DIAGRAM FOR RESOLVING OUTCOMES FOR MASTERS

QUALIFICATIONS……………………………………………………….………………………30

33

SHDC.125/2019(3)

FOREWORD

This document contains the structures and processes relevant for the regulation and administration of higher degrees in the University of Johannesburg (“the University”). This document together with the University’s Higher Degree Policy provide a framework for the administration, governance and quality management of higher degree studies and programmes at the University. Individual faculties may enact additional rules to address requirements specific to them, subject to approval by Senate.

For the purposes of this document, the term higher degrees refers to studies, research, or programmes at the master’s and/or doctoral level, equivalent to level 9 and 10 of the Higher Education Sub Qualifications Framework (HEQF).

Copies of this document are available from the University’s website.

This document must be read in conjunction with the Higher Degrees Policy, Research scope of Master’s, Honours and 480 Credits Bachelor’s Degrees, and the University’s Academic Regulations, specifically those sections of the Regulations dealing with master’s and doctoral degrees.

34

SHDC.125/2019(3)

DEFINITION OF TERMS

TERM DEFINITION / DESCRIPTION

Senate Higher Degrees Committee (SHDC)

The SHDC, which is a subcommittee of Senate, considers in detail recommendations from the faculties on higher degree- related matters and advises Senate accordingly.

Faculty “Faculty” also includes “College” in the remainder of this document.

Faculty Higher Degrees Committee (FHDC)

The Faculty Higher Degrees Committee is a subcommittee of the Board of Faculty that has the delegated responsibility for the management of aspects relating to higher degrees at faculty level.

Vice-Dean Vice-Dean responsible for postgraduate studies

SENATE The Senate is the body responsible for academic matters at the University.

SENEX The Executive Committee of Senate.

Dean’s Office The Dean’s Office (including the HFA, faculty officer/administrator and his/her staff) is responsible for the administrative structure supporting operations and functions associated with higher degree studies.

Head of Faculty Administration (HFA)

The HFA(s) is (are) finally responsible for the administrative and support functions at faculty level.

Faculty Research Ethics Committee (FREC)

The Faculty Research Ethics Committee is a sub-committee of the Faculty and of the Institutional Ethics Committee

HoD Head of Department

35

SHDC.125/2019(3)

TERM DEFINITION / DESCRIPTION

Recommendation Implies no final decision-making authority but is a necessary step for approval (at a higher level). Recommendation requires substantive consideration informed by insight into a full set of documentation.

Approval Implies full and final decision-making authority (necessary and sufficient), and requires substantive consideration informed by insight into a full set of documentation.

Ratification Implies full and final decision-making authority (necessary and sufficient). Differs from “approval” in that it is usually exercised based on insight into only a summary of the relevant documentation while retaining the right to consider all relevant documentation (and the duty to do so where necessary). Because it is in practice more cursory than “approval”, ratification typically requires at least one earlier recommendation made based on a substantive consideration informed by insight into a full set of documentation.

Preregistration A period before formal registration where a potential higher degree student is given limited access to institutional resources in order to prepare for formal registration.

For noting Except in extraordinary circumstances, no decision-making authority associated with this step, but may refer matters back for further consideration.

Additional assessor An Additional Assessor must meet all the criteria required of an external assessor and is appointed to expand the scope of the assessment or to resolve conflicting issues. The additional assessor receives the thesis or (minor) dissertation as submitted and allocate a mark. The additional assessor has the same standing as any of the other assessors and the recommendation offered by an additional assessor is not binding on the FHDC or the SHDC.

External Expert An External Expert meets all of the qualifying attributes of a Third Assessor, but is moreover someone of recognized experience and an unquestionable expert in the discipline and study field of the dissertation. The external expert will also receive the reports of all the other assessors Recommendation offered by the External Expert is not binding upon FHDC/SHDC.

Arbitrator / Arbitrator An Arbiter / Arbitrator meets all of the qualifying attributes of an External Expert. The Arbitrator/arbiter receives the reports of the other assessors/ experts as well as the report by the supervisor. Recommendation offered by an Arbitrator / Arbiter is binding upon the decision making process of evaluating a conflicting situation.

36

SHDC.125/2019(3)

PART A: ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1 A SUMMARY OF COMMITTEES AND

STRUCTURES AND THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

1.1 The University Senate, which formally approves, ratifies and/or notes any

decision referred to it by the Senate Higher Degrees Committee (SHDC). For reasons of practicality, Senate may also devolve some of these responsibilities to Senex, or to the Vice-Chancellor or his/her nominee. In addition, Senate may refer any matters relating to higher degree research or degree programmes to the SHDC for consideration.

1.2 The SHDC, which is a subcommittee of Senate, considers in detail recommendations from the faculties on higher degree-related matters and advises Senate accordingly.

1.3 The Faculty Board is the principal custodian of academic quality in regard to higher degree programmes in the faculty, and is expected to formally establish appropriate structures or mandate existing ones to assist the faculty in exercising this responsibility.

1.4 The Faculty Higher Degrees Committee (FHDC) is a subcommittee of the Board of Faculty that has the delegated responsibility for the management of all aspects relating to higher degrees at faculty level. Decisions taken by the FHDC are submitted to the Faculty Board for ratification or noting and to the SHDC for noting or approval, as is applicable.

1.5 The supervisor ensures professional and ethical academic supervision of the higher degree research study and students registered under her/his name. He/she is also responsible for University academic administrative and managerial matters attendant on the project and students registered under her/his supervision. The general rule should apply that a supervisor may not supervise a student studying towards a qualification higher than her/his own. In general, the University does not limit the number of higher degree students any one staff member may supervise, but it expects faculties to manage throughput purposefully with due regard to student progress and academic employee workload, and to place a premium on quality management considerations in this regard. Where there is a need or request to change a supervisor during the study phase the allocation process should be followed, documented and records must be kept.

1.6 Faculties put strategies in place to mitigate the risk of failure of higher degree students. This includes rigorous student selection, ensuring the implementation of the Supervisor-Student Agreement, monitoring student progress and mentoring and supporting inexperienced supervisors. Faculties may also consider using a peer review system before submission of dissertations and theses for assessment.

37

SHDC.125/2019(3)

PART B: REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES AS THEY APPLY TO THE STUDY CYCLE OF A HIGHER DEGREE STUDENT

2 THE ADMISSION PHASE 2.1 Candidates may be admitted to a master’s or doctoral programme as stipulated

in section 7 of the Higher Degrees Policy. 2.2 Additional admission requirements for higher degrees may be determined by

Faculty Boards and submitted to Senate for approval. 2.3 Where an applicant for a master’s or doctoral degree does not hold the

prerequisite formal qualifications, the Policy: Recognition of Prior Learning is initiated by the HoD concerned to award to an applicant academic status equivalent to that of an honours degree in the case of a master’s and a master’s degree in the case of a doctorate, as determined by the particular Faculty Board, approved by Senate and contained in the faculty rules and regulations concerned.

2.4 Even if an applicant meets the minimum entry requirements as stated above, a HoD in consultation with the applicable Vice Dean or Executive Deans office may refuse to admit an applicant if in her/his assessment the applicant is unlikely to succeed in the chosen research project, if the DHET enrolment allocation has been exceeded or if the department lacks sufficient supervisory capacity and an appropriate supervisor cannot be identified within the university.

2.5 Applications for admission by international students are dealt with according to the regulations stipulated in the UJ Academic Regulations.

2.6 Master’s and doctoral candidates have to re-register annually until they have completed their studies subject to duration and progress requirements.

2.7 In general, if a student exceeds the maximum time the current relevant HD: S&P and Academic Regulations apply and not those at the time of registration.

2.8 A period of preregistration may be allowed subject to faculty regulations. The maximum time allowed for the preregistration is one year.

3 THE CONTACT AND APPROVAL PHASE 3.1 A student contacts the department or a potential supervisor and seeks advice on

admission, a potential research idea and the assignment of a supervisor to his/her study. 3.1.1 To be appointed as supervisor for a master’s minor/full dissertation a

staff member must have acted as sole supervisor before or must have gained experience as co-supervisor with an experienced colleague.

3.1.2 To be appointed as supervisor for a doctoral thesis, the staff member concerned must have a doctoral degree in the specific or cognate discipline.

3.1.3 If the supervisor is not a UJ staff member, a co-supervisor who is a UJ staff member has to be appointed.

3.1.4 A PDRF may be appointed in a co-supervisory role at the discretion of the faculty and with mutual agreement.

3.2 The prospective student is advised on registration procedures by the faculty office. Faculties are responsible for ensuring that systems and processes are in place to keep records of all relevant application documentation.

3.3 Guidelines are provided by the supervisor on the preparation of a research proposal and technical requirements pertaining to academic writing and referencing.

3.4 The Supervisor-Student Agreement must be signed within one month of registration and should be kept on record.

38

SHDC.125/2019(3)

3.5 The student formally registers for the degree programme to qualify for research supervision. Thereafter, master’s students have six and doctoral students nine months to complete their research proposals to the standards required by the relevant faculty and University policy. During this time they have access to the University resources that they require to formulate their research proposals. Students may not undertake any data collection or any activities related to data collection prior to applicable ethical clearance and the acceptance of the proposal by the relevant structure within the Faculty.

3.6 The study field, title, supervisors and assessors for course work minor or full dissertations and theses are approved by the FHDC and noted by the SHDC.

3.7 Research proposals are formally approved by faculties in terms of their quality and research ethics requirements. Research proposals are scrutinised at departmental level before they are considered and approved by the relevant FHDC. Research proposals may also be approved at departmental level where Faculty specific regulations provide for such an arrangement. Faculties may require a student to defend his/her proposal.

3.8 If a research proposal is not approved by the FHDC or delegated authority, the student may re-work the proposal, but may only submit it for approval one more time. If the research proposal on this re-submission is not approved, the student’s registration is terminated, unless permission to continue is granted by the HoD and Executive Dean concerned.

3.9 Changes to the study title, the supervisors and assessors of minor/full dissertations and theses are approved by the FHDC and noted by the SHDC.

4 FULL-TIME VERSUS PART-TIME REGISTRATION, RESIDENCY

AND INTERRUPTION OF STUDIES 4.1 A student may register as a full time or part time student. Each of the modes have

consequences regarding the set maximum time. Switching between the modes is subject to permission by the FHDC.

4.2 Irrespective of full or part-time enrolment, the minimum formal registration period for a master’s degree is one academic year and for a doctoral degree two academic years. In each case these periods run from the start of the year semester of first registration for the degree to the day on which the student submits the final version of the minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis to the faculty for assessment.

4.3 Table 1 stipulates the minimum and maximum periods of enrolment for full- time and part-time master’s and doctoral study.

Table 1: Duration of masters and doctoral studies Master’s study Doctoral study

Full-time study

Minimum time

12 months

24 months

Maximum time

24 months

48 months

Part-time study

Minimum time

12 months

24 months

Maximum time

36 months

60 months

4.4 Permission to register beyond the permissible maximum time requires motivation by the supervisor, recommendation by the HoD and approval by the Executive Dean. Permission will only be granted in exceptional circumstances and will in general be limited to 12 months.

39

SHDC.125/2019(3)

4.5 Abeyance may be granted in exceptional circumstance, for a maximum of six months, and only once during the period of study. Interruption (a study break which does not count against a student when calculating the period within which the study must be completed) may be granted in exceptional circumstance, for a maximum of twelve months, and only once during the period of study. This matter would be to the discretion of the Higher Degrees Committee within the faculty.

4.6 The period of interruption would not be counted to the maximum period of study. Motivation is based upon the student having become incapacitated, due to medical reasons. The period of abeyance will be counted into the maximum period of study. The application has to be supported by the supervisor, recommended by HoD and approved by FHDC.

4.7 A change in registration from full time to part time may only be done before the maximum time for full time registration has been reached and with permission by the Dean or his designate.

4.8 Where professional bodies stipulate periods of enrolment for degrees that differ from those outlined here, faculties may adjust formal enrolment periods accordingly; such adjustments must have the endorsement of the Registrar’s office and have the approval of Senate.

5 ETHICS CLEARANCE 5.1 Accountability for all research ethics reside in the UJ Senate. 5.2 Ethics matters attendant on higher degree research activities will be dealt with

according to the Code of Academic and Research Ethics. 5.3 Approval by the faculty of any higher degrees proposal implies that the research

will be undertaken in compliance with all applicable statutory and ethical guidelines, as defined in the faculty-specific regulations or academic information brochures and the Code of Academic and Research Ethics.

5.4 A unique ethics clearance number will be assigned by the Faculty and applies to all research projects that have received ethical clearance.

6 HEALTH AND SAFETY 6.1 The supervisors of a research project are responsible for assessing whether or

not a research project has health and safety implications in accordance with Policy: Occupational Health and Safety.

6.2 Where a supervisor require further guidance or assistance where needed, they should contact the Office of Occupational Health or the Office of Occupational Safety.

6.3 Supervisors should alert higher degree students to these matters, and should advise students on an on-going basis, particularly where laboratory work or fieldwork (involving perhaps contract fieldworkers or data gatherers) is involved.

6.4 If a project has significant health and safety implications, the supervisor in consultation with the Office for Occupational Health and the Office of Occupational Safety should provide more formalised training or orientation to the student(s) to ensure compliance with Health and Safety regulations, UJ regulations and the conditions of any relevant insurance cover.

7 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 7.1 Guiding principles on intellectual property can be found in the Policy on

Intellectual Property, and Guidelines on Authorship: Research Output. 7.2 The supervisors are responsible for monitoring all higher degree projects for

potential inventions or other intellectual property implications.

40

SHDC.125/2019(3)

7.3 Students who develop inventions or other forms of commercially valuable intellectual property are expected to disclose such inventions to their supervisors, in accordance with the Policy on Intellectual Property.

8 THE STUDY PHASE 8.1 The supervisor enters into a formal Supervisor-Student Agreement with the

student. Either the UJ Supervisor-Student Agreement or a faculty version of this Agreement (if it exists) may be used for this purpose.

8.2 The structures that provide support during supervision and that can be utilised by the higher degree student include: 8.2.1 The supervisor, who has specific responsibilities towards the higher

degree student as specified in the Supervisor-Student Agreement; 8.2.2 The home department of the higher degree student, which may offer

different kinds of support; 8.2.3 The UJ Postgraduate School, including Statkon, which provides a range

of support in various aspects of research; and 8.2.4 Higher degree support hosted by academic departments and faculties.

8.3 Students may obtain information on higher degree bursaries such as the availability of external and internal bursaries, bursary conditions and closing dates for application for the various bursaries from the Postgraduate School. 8.3.1 Students can furthermore consult their supervisors, academic

departments and faculties for information on bursaries. 8.3.2 Higher degree students are generally expected to apply for external

bursaries before they apply for UJ bursaries. Students may apply for UJ supervisor-linked bursaries after they have formally registered.

8.4 Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that six monthly progress reports from the date of first registration of the student are submitted to faculty. These documents must be signed by both the supervisor(s) and the student. The faculties are the custodians of the records.

8.5 Any change in study field, scope, supervisor or proposal does not constitute reasons for extending the time allowed for completing the study.

9 CHANGE OF TITLE OF A DISSERTATION OR THESIS 9.1 Changes of the final title of a submitted thesis or dissertation must have the

approval of the approval of the FHDC and be resubmitted for noting by SHDC. 9.2 Where relevant, if the title, scope or study field of the study has changed the

supervisor must ensure that the study funder is notified of the particular change.

10 CONVERSION/TRANSFER IN REGISTRATION FROM A MASTER’S TO A DOCTORAL DEGREE

10.1 In exceptional cases, where the scope and impact of a project originally registered for a master’s programme prove to expand considerably beyond the initial expectation and where the project is expected to make a novel contribution to the body of knowledge in the discipline, a student’s registration for a research master’s may be considered for conversion to registration for a doctoral degree.

10.2 The process can only be initiated after nine months of registration and before 18 months of registration.

10.3 The process may not be initiated after a dissertation has been submitted for final assessment.

10.4 The decision to request a transfer may originate from discussions between the candidate and the supervisor or from the evaluation by the supervisor or co- supervisor(s).

41

SHDC.125/2019(3)

10.5 In order to qualify for upgrading the student should demonstrate: ‘high-level research capability and to make a significant and original academic contribution at the frontiers of a discipline or field’ (HEQSF 2013 p.36).

10.6 The motivation for the conversion is submitted by the supervisor, via the HoD to the FHDC. The motivation includes a submission from the student that explicates how the research project will be advanced from a master’s level to a doctoral level – conceptually, theoretically, methodologically and analytically. Supporting evidence to support the motivation should be attached.

10.7 If the FHDC supports the application, it appoints two independent external experts that meets the criteria for appointment as external assessors for a doctoral thesis, to evaluate the merits of the application.

10.8 The evaluation of the merits of the conversion may include a presentation by the student – to the FHDC and/or the external assessors.

10.9 The external assessors submit their recommendation to the FHDC, together with a detailed motivation for the recommendation.

10.10 The FHDC considers the recommendation, in accordance with the delegation of authority in the Faculty, and submits its recommendation via the SHDC for final consideration and approval by Senate.

10.11 The student must be registered for at least one year for the doctoral qualification. 10.12 The maximum time to completion for the doctoral qualification includes the period

the student was registered for the master’s qualification. 10.13 A candidate who changes registration from a master’s degree to a doctoral

degree will not be entitled to receive a master’s degree if the doctoral thesis is failed.

11 DISPUTE RESOLUTION DURING THE STUDY PERIOD 11.1 In the event that a dispute arises between two or more of the parties involved in

a particular postgraduate study, namely the student and one or more supervisors, and they are unable to resolve the dispute they should approach the HoD to resolve the matter.

11.2 If the matter is not resolved and after exhausting the departmental processes, any of the parties may approach the Vice Dean responsible for postgraduate studies to resolve the dispute.

11.3 If the Vice Dean is unable to resolve the dispute the Executive Dean of the faculty will take steps to resolve the dispute.

11.4 In the event of a dispute not being resolved, the case is can be referred by the Executive Dean to the SHDC for final consideration and steps to resolve the matter if the matter relates to the outcome or process of the degree.

12 APPOINTMENT OF ASSESSORS 12.1 As the student’s studies near completion (and the assessors have not yet been

appointed), the supervisor notifies the HFA (or the faculty officer responsible for higher degree studies) of the student’s intention to submit at least four (4) months in advance in order to start the process to appoint external assessors. Approval for the proposed assessors must be done so that they can be appointed timeously, which is a prerequisite for the assessment process to commence.

12.2 The supervisor and HoD agree on at least two assessors for a master’s study and at least three for a doctoral study to be proposed to the FHDC. The nomination forms for the assessors, together with updated CVs, are submitted to the FHDC for approval. A summary of the appointments of assessors for doctoral assessors is submitted and to the SHDC for noting. 12.2.1 For a minor dissertation at least two assessors, both holding at least a

42

SHDC.125/2019(3)

master’s degree in the particular discipline or cognate discipline, must be appointed, at least one of whom must be external to the University. No external or internal assessor should have had prior involvement with the study to the effect that objectivity of the assessor is compromised when assessing the minor dissertation).

12.2.2 For a research dissertation at least two external assessors must be appointed, one of whom must have a doctoral qualification while the other may have as highest academic qualification a master’s degree in particular or cognate discipline. These assessors must be external to the University, and must not have had prior involvement with the study which might compromise their objectivity when assessing the dissertation.

12.2.3 In exceptional circumstances only, a Faculty may motivate to the SHDC that consideration be given to the appointment of an assessor from within the University, but this person may not be the supervisor or co- supervisor of the dissertation.

12.2.4 For a doctoral thesis at least three assessors should be appointed. All assessors must hold a doctoral degree and be external to the University. They must also not have had prior involvement with the project which to the effect that their objectivity is compromised when assessing the thesis. Efforts should be made to identify at least one assessor from outside South Africa.

12.2.5 To ensure the independence of assessments, each assessor must be attached to a different institution.

12.2.6 All assessors must have an appropriate academic or industry research profile, experience and stature.

12.3 The appointment of an external assessor from a non-degree conferring institution must be motivated to the FHDC for approval.

12.4 Supervisors are required to submit a motivation for the appointment of a doctoral assessor without a doctoral qualification, via the HOD, to the FHDC for approval. The motivation must include the necessary credentials of the assessor to substantiate the appointment, e.g. academic standing, experience.

12.5 Supervisors and co-supervisors of the specific study may not be appointed as assessors.

12.6 Any person who may reasonably be expected to lack sufficient objectivity in the assessment of a minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis is excluded from acting as an assessor; this includes, for example, relatives or dependents of degree candidates, persons over whom any of the supervisors could exert undue influence, even by default, any person who has been involved in the study or who assisted the student in any way.

12.7 Only in the case of a minor dissertation may at most one permanent employee of UJ act as one of the assessors for UJ postgraduate students.

12.8 Distinguished Visiting Professors, Visiting Professors and Research Associates may be appointed as external assessors for UJ postgraduate students, provided that they are not disqualified from acting as assessors in terms of paragraph 12.6 and 12.7 and the other considerations specified in the policy.

43

SHDC.125/2019(3)

13 SUBMISSION OF MINOR DISSERTATION, DISSERTATION OR

THESIS TO THE FACULTY FOR ASSESSMENT 13.1 Faculties decide and communicate to students as to where and how the

assessment copies are submitted. Rules and regulations pertaining to the presentation, format, and layout of minor dissertations, dissertations and theses that are to be submitted for assessment are stipulated in the Faculty Rules and Regulations.

13.2 Supervisors should take reasonable steps to check that plagiarism does not occur in higher degrees. One measure, as indicated in 13.12, is that a student has to submit a report generated by commercial software programmes (such as Turnitin) along with the documentation submitted to the faculty for assessment purposes. The student remains responsible to ensure that plagiarism does not occur. The Policy: Student Plagiarism applies.

13.3 No minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis may be submitted for final assessment without the express permission of the supervisor. Where the supervisor decides to withhold permission, due processes must be followed.

13.4 No supervisor shall unreasonably withhold permission for the submission of the minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis for assessment.

13.5 Where a dispute arises between the supervisor(s) and student about the submission of the minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis for assessment, the student has the right to approach the HoD, Vice Dean and Executive Dean, in this order, with a written submission motivating why the minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis is considered ready to be assessed. The Executive Dean will make a decision in consultation with the HoD and FHDC. The decision of the Executive Dean is reported to the SHDC.

13.6 Where the supervisor does not approve the submission for examination of the (minor) dissertation or thesis the supervisor is not involved in the appointment of the external assessors. Where the external assessors have already been appointed the FHDC/Executive Dean should consider the appointment of alternate external assessors.

13.7 The submission of the minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis should be in accordance with the final submission dates per semester as contained in the University’s Year Programme to ensure timely completion of the assessment process. Late submission could imply the renewal of a registration and/or not graduating on time. However, even if a minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis is submitted timeously, the University can offer no guarantee that all external assessors will complete their assessment in time for the next graduation ceremony.

13.8 In accordance with faculty-specific requirements, printed, provisionally bound copies of a candidate’s minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis that must only be submitted to the HFA if requested by the supervisors and assessors appointed for the particular study.

13.9 An abstract in English of no more than 1000 words (two pages), describing the problem statement, the most important methods followed and the most important results obtained, must appear in the front of every minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis.

13.10 The candidate is responsible for ensuring that the minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis is of the required technical and language quality required by the supervisor(s) before submission.

13.11 All electronic documents should be done in high resolution. The printing of the copies, where needed, of the minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis must be of a high quality, on high-quality paper. All text and graphical material must be

44

SHDC.125/2019(3)

clearly legible and should be easily reproducible. 13.11.1 The candidate has to submit the following to the faculty office for

assessment purposes: Copies of the (minor) dissertation or thesis as an encrypted PDF document. If required by the faculty or department, ring-bound copies equal to the number of assessors and supervisors that have requested it should also be submitted.

13.11.2 Permission to Submit for Assessment Form signed by the candidate, supervisor(s), HoD; Where a supervisor did not support or approve submission this must be indicated and the HOD must sign the form.

13.11.3 Affidavit confirming that the work is the candidate’s own and that all sources used have been duly acknowledged and copyright approval has been obtained where applicable. The affidavit must also state that the study has not been submitted to another institution as part of the requirements for a formal qualification. Where the study is done as a dissertation or thesis by article or essay copyright approval must be provided in line with the Guidelines on theses or dissertations in article or essay format.

13.11.4 Suitable steps must have been made to detect possible similarities, copying or plagiarism such as a Turnitin (or similar) report and evidence must be provided of this.

14 DISSEMINATION OF DOCUMENTS TO ASSESSORS AND SUPERVISOR(S)

14.1 When the minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis and the other relevant documentation have been submitted to the HFA or faculty office, the assessment documentation is sent to the assessors. Assessors are granted six (6) weeks to assess a doctoral thesis, five (5) weeks for a master’s dissertation and four (4) weeks for a minor dissertation and to return the completed assessment form, narrative report (and dissertation or thesis if he/she has indicated corrections in the manuscript) and the completed Temporary Appointment and Claim forms to the faculty office.

14.2 When a minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis is sent to the assessor it must be accompanied by a cover letter from the faculty, the assessment guidelines stipulating the requirements for the particular qualification (specifying inter alia the aspects the assessor is expected to report on in the case of a minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis) and a copy of the assessor’s report form. The cover letter must contain the following sentence: “Please note that no inference as to the result expected by the University can or should be drawn from the fact that a minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis, is submitted to an assessor for assessment, as submission for assessment may occur with or without the permission of a supervisor.”

14.3 The HFA or faculty officer responsible for higher degree studies has to ensure that the assessors’ reports are received timeously, and, if not, the responsible faculty office staff member must follow up on these reports.

14.4 Only once all reports have been received may the HFA forward these to the supervisor and HoD so that the supervisor can compile their report.

14.5 When the supervisor shares requirements for changes or corrections by assessors with the student, it must be ensured that only the part of the assessors’ reports stipulating the requirements and no other information is not shared. When there are conflicting results the reports are not to be placed at the disposal of the student.

14.6 Supervisor(s) submit a supervisor’s report to the HFA or faculty officer

45

SHDC.125/2019(3)

responsible for higher degree studies which contextualises the supervision process and highlights the achievements and shortcomings and must be submitted to the faculty office. This report serves along with all other documents at the FHDC and SHDC meetings.

14.7 During the assessment period (from the submission of the minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis for assessment, to the receipt of all assessment reports) the supervisor(s) and student may not communicate with the assessors regarding the student’s work or the assessment process.

15 POSSIBLE OUTCOMES RECOMMENDED BY THE INDIVIDUAL

ASSESSORS 15.1 There are five possible responses from an assessor of a minor dissertation or

dissertation, namely: 15.1.1 He/she may approve the dissertation with no corrections to be made,

and award a mark of 50% or more. 15.1.2 He/she may provisionally approve the dissertation with minor

corrections to be done to the satisfaction of the supervisor and award a mark of 50% or more.

15.1.3 He/she may recommend substantial amendments to the dissertation without awarding a mark in the light of deficiencies identified in her/his narrative report and advise that the revised version be submitted to her/him for reassessment acknowledging the fact that her/his final mark will be capped at 50%.

15.1.4 He/she may reject the dissertation, awarding a mark reflecting a fail (less than 50%) in which case no reassessment by this assessor will take place.

15.2 There are four possible responses from an assessor of a thesis, namely: 15.2.1 Approval of the thesis and that the doctoral degree be conferred, with or

without minor editorial corrections; 15.2.2 Provisional approval of the thesis, subject to the candidate effecting non-

substantive corrections and improvements as identified in the assessor’s report, to the satisfaction of the supervisor;

15.2.3 Non-approval by the assessor due to substantial deficiencies in the thesis as identified in the assessor’s report.

a. Recommend that the substantial amendments be effected o the satisfaction of the SHDC (The FHDC’s process may involve the advice from an internal/external independent expert); or

b. The thesis to be re-submitted to the assessor for re-assessment. 14.2.4 Reject the thesis, in which case no reassessment is recommended or

considered. 16 MANAGING AND PROCESSING THE ASSESSMENT RESULTS

IN THE FACULTY OR COLLEGE 16.1 The standard process for managing and integrating assessment results is

provided for in tables 2 to 5 below. Faculties engage with assessors separately and independently during the assessment process unless they elect the option to seek a joint recommendation from assessors when there are conflicting results, as indicated in tables 3 and 5 below. A flow diagram that details the process of resolving the outcomes of master’s qualifications is given in Appendix 2. Faculties may however, choose to incorporate the seeking of a joint recommendation as a standard step into their processes, regardless of whether there may be conflicting assessment results or not.

46

SHDC.125/2019(3)

16.2 In seeking a joint recommendation from assessors, either as a standard step in the assessment process or as an option when there are conflicting assessment results, a faculty circulates the individual assessment reports to all assessors and facilitates a discussion via email, telephone, video call, or in-person meetings. This process may involve an oral defense of the dissertation/thesis by the candidate, provided that all assessors are present or copied in all parts of the deliberations. Faculties wishing to incorporate an oral defense should arrive at faculty-specific or discipline-specific guidelines, approved by the relevant Faculty Board and Senate.

16.3 Where a joint recommendation is arrived at, a Joint Report authored by HoD or the individual delegated by the Dean or FHDC and approved by all assessors is submitted to the FHDC, along with all the independent assessors’ reports. Significant differences between the individual and joint reports need to be explained in the joint report.

16.4 Where a joint recommendation is not arrived at, the HoD or the individual delegated by the Dean or FHDC and provides a report indicating the reasons. The report may recommend a particular course of action for the FHDC to consider. The FHDC will have regard to the various courses of action set out in 16.13 below and to the standard resolutions indicated in 16.16.

16.5 Where a joint recommendation is not arrived at, if one or more assessors provide a well-motivated argument for the revision and resubmission of the work submitted for assessment, the default position is to do such revisions. In all instances of corrections and revisions the supervisor(s) (and where applicable the non-assessing chair) oversees the process and certifies in writing that all corrections requested by the assessors have been addressed before the student resubmits the corrected version of the study to the faculty office.

16.6 Where a joint recommendation is not arrived at, if two (or more) of the assessors for a master’s dissertation fail the study it constitutes a fail.

16.7 In the finalisation of the assessment of a master’s study with conflicting assessment results or a difference of 15% or more the FHDAC/FHDC is not obliged to award a simple average of the assessors’ marks if there is a discrepancy of 15% or more between the marks allocated by individual assessors, or if one assessor recommends a distinction mark and the other allocates a mark lower than a distinction. The processes described in resolution of conflicting results may be followed

16.8 In the case where minor corrections are required, a candidate is granted a maximum period of three months to do the corrections to the satisfaction of the supervisor.

16.9 In the case where substantial changes and resubmission for re-assessment are required, a candidate is granted a maximum of six months to do the corrections and to resubmit the minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis with the approval of the Supervisor. The HFA forwards the corrected document to the assessor(s) who requested a resubmission. The mark of the assessor(s) who proposed a resubmission will be capped at 50% in the case of a (minor) dissertation.

16.10 A student who has failed a research master’s or a doctoral degree will need to reapply for the particular degree and register a new topic if they wish to reattempt the degree. A failed master’s dissertation or doctoral thesis may not be resubmitted for examination.

16.11 In the case of a coursework master’s qualification a student who has failed the minor dissertation, but has passed the coursework modules, the FHDC, on recommendation of the supervisor and Head of the Department, may approve that the candidate repeats the minor dissertation module on a newly defined study field, to be submitted and approved as per the processes stipulated for first

47

SHDC.125/2019(3)

time submission and approval of study fields. Repeating the minor dissertation is subject to: 16.11.1 Overall performance in the coursework; 16.11.2 Completing the minor dissertation in the allowed maximum period for a

master’s qualification, i.e. 24 months in the case of a full time student and 36 months in the case of a part time student. In exceptional circumstances, another 12 months may be granted to complete the study.

16.12 In order to be awarded a master’s degree with distinction a student must: 16.12.1 complete a master’s qualification within two years full time or three

years part time registration. 16.12.2 achieve a final mark of at least 75% in case of a master’s by

dissertation. 16.12.3 achieve an average final mark for the qualification of at least 75% in the

case of a master’s by coursework, calculated in accordance with the credit values allocated to all the coursework modules and the minor dissertation respectively (for example, if the credit value of the minor dissertation represents 40% of the total credit value of the qualification, the average final mark for the qualification will be weighted in the proportion of 40 for the minor dissertation and 60 for all the coursework modules).

16.12.4 never have failed a module as a first attempt in the relevant programme. 16.12.5 have obtained a minimum mark of 65% in every prescribed module at

NQF level 9 for master’s degrees and, in the case of a master’s qualification by coursework, in the minor dissertation as well.

16.13 Should the assessment result have been problematic, with assessors that made conflicting recommendations as to the awarding or not of the degree, or as to the merit of the minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis, FHDC should take steps to resolve the impasse. The resolution of the conflicting recommendations could involve one or more of the following steps: 16.13.1 Request additional information from the supervisors and/or assessors; 16.13.2 Recommend further engagement with the assessors. One possibility is

to reach a joint recommendation; 16.13.3 Appoint a knowledgeable external expert to advise the FHDC; 16.13.4 Appoint an additional assessor to assess the originally submitted minor

dissertation, dissertation or thesis independently; or 16.13.5 Identify an independent arbiter to consider all the documentation

pertaining to the assessment of the study (including the individual assessors’, supervisor’s and any other reports) in order to make a final recommendation to the FHDC.

16.14 It should be borne in mind that submission to a further external assessor or external expert still permits the FHDC and SHDC to make a final decision concerning the end result, whereas submission to an arbiter mobilises all the understandings and conventions surrounding arbitrage and obliges the SHDC to accept the recommendation of the arbiter.

16.15 The SHDC may make further recommendations to resolve conflicting assessment results, on an ad hoc basis, depending on the merits of the individual case (except in the case of an arbiter’s recommendation).

16.16 Guidelines for FHDC responses in terms of the handling of non-conflicting and conflicting assessment results are provided in the tables 2 to 5 below as well as the flow diagram in Appendix 2.

16.17 All assessments in the category of ‘standard integration of non-conflicting assessment results’ are reviewed and finalised by the Faculty. When there are significant discrepancies between the results of the assessors or where one or

48

SHDC.125/2019(3)

more assessors recommend revision and reassessment, results cannot be immediately finalised.

16.18 An allegation of plagiarism will be dealt with in accordance with the Policy: Student Plagiarism.

16.19 If two or more of the assessors for a doctoral thesis recommend a fail, the assessment outcome constitutes a fail.

16.20 A candidate who has failed a (minor) dissertation or thesis may not again be assessed on the same subject matter.

16.21 When a (minor) dissertation or thesis is failed, supervisors must provide details explaining why the study was allowed to be submitted for assessment unless the supervisor was opposed to the submission.

16.22 When a dissertation is failed a proposal on a different project should be submitted should the student wish to reregister and the faculty is willing to accept the reregistration.

16.23 Where applicable, a designated independent person/structure within the faculty or department may confirm that the necessary changes has been made without sending the document back for assessment by the external assessor.

16.24 The final assessment outcome may be revealed to the candidate only once the assessment results have been approved by the FHDC (in the case of master’s study) and by the SHDC (in the case of doctoral studies).

16.25 An assessor’s name may be revealed to a student only after the assessment process has been finalised, provided that the particular assessor has given consent that her/his identity may be revealed to the student.

Table 2: Guidelines for the standard integration of non-conflicting results for master’s minor dissertations and dissertations

(Minor) Dissertation Results proposed by assessors

Faculty Response

All the assessors recommend a mark between 50% and 74%, not exceeding a difference of 15%, with or without minor corrections.

Average the marks to determine the final mark.

All the assessors recommend a mark below 50% (i.e. a fail).

The consensus carries and the student fails.

All the assessors recommend a distinction mark of 75% or higher.

Average the marks. Student passes with distinction.

One assessor recommends a distinction mark while the other assessor recommends a mark between 50% and 74%,the marks do not differ by more than 15%, and the average of the two marks is a distinction mark.

Average the marks. The student passes with distinction mark. A distinction for the qualification in the case of a minor dissertation can only be given when all other requirements are met.

One assessor recommends a distinction mark while the other assessor recommends a mark between 50% and 74%, the marks do not differ by more than 15%, and the average of the two marks is not a distinction mark.

Average the marks.

49

SHDC.125/2019(3)

The final mark for the (minor) dissertation is 73% or 74%.

Adjust the final mark to a distinction mark of 75%.

Table 3: Guidelines for the standard integration of non-conflicting results for Theses.

Thesis Results proposed by assessors

Faculty Response

All the assessors recommend awarding the qualification, with or without minor corrections.

Recommend the awarding of the qualification following a declaration from the supervisor that all the corrections were implemented by the student.

Two or more assessors recommend the failure of the thesis.

Recommend that the majority result carries and the student fails.

Table 4: Guidelines for standard handling of conflicting results for master’s minor dissertations and dissertations


Faculty Response

All the assessors recommend a mark between 50% and 74%, but the mark allocation differs by 15% or more.

• Facilitate further discussion between the assessors to arrive at a joint recommendation.

• Appoint an expert advisor. Consider the expert advisor’s recommendation and recommend an appropriate mark.

• Appoint an additional assessor. Average the additional assessor’s mark with the mark of the original assessor that is closest to that of the third assessor to determine the final mark.

50

SHDC.125/2019(3)

One assessor recommends the failure of the (minor) dissertation, while the other recommends a distinction, pass mark or revision and reassessment.

• Facilitate further discussion between the assessors to arrive at a joint recommendation.

• Appoint an additional assessor: • If the additional assessor recommends a

pass, the two pass marks are averaged. • If the additional assessor recommends a

fail, the (minor) dissertation fails. • If the additional assessor recommends a

major revision and reassessment, the student revises and resubmits for reassessment. If a pass mark, capped at 50%, is then awarded, the student passes with the average of the two pass marks.

• If the third assessor recommends a fail for the resubmitted (minor) dissertation, the student fails.


Either or both assessors recommend revision and resubmission for reassessment.

Student revises and resubmits for reassessment. • If both assessors recommend a pass mark,

with the mark for the revision capped at 50%, average the two marks.

• If one assessor recommends a fail, appoint a additional assessor (as above) or appoint an expert advisor. Consider the expert advisor’s recommendation and recommend an appropriate mark.

• If both assessors recommend a fail, the student fails.

One assessor recommends a distinction, while the second assessor recommends a pass mark between 50% and 74% and opposes a distinction, but the average mark is a distinction and the mark allocation differs by 15% or less.

• Appoint an additional assessor: • If the additional assessor recommends a

distinction, the average of the two higher marks carries.

• If the additional assessor does not recommend a distinction, the average of the two lower marks carries.

51

SHDC.125/2019(3)


Faculty Response

One assessor recommends a distinction, while the second assessor recommends a pass mark between 50% and 74% and the mark allocation differs by 15% or less.

• Facilitate further discussion between the assessors to arrive at a joint recommendation


• Appoint an additional assessor. Average the additional assessor’s mark with the mark of the original assessor that is closest to that of the third assessor to determine the final mark.

Table 5: Guidelines for the standard handling conflicting results for doctoral theses

Thesis Results proposed by assessors

Faculty Response

One assessor recommends the failure of the thesis, while the other two recommend a pass or revision and reassessment.

• Facilitate further discussion between the assessors to arrive at a joint recommendation

• Appoint an additional assessor. • If the assessor recommends a pass, the

thesis passes. • If the assessor recommends a fail, an

arbiter is appointed to finalise the result. (The arbiter’s decision is binding on all parties.)


One or more assessors recommend revision and resubmission for reassessment and no assessor fails the thesis.

• Student revises and resubmits for reassessment.

• If the assessor (or assessors) who recommended a resubmission recommends a pass, the student passes.

17 FINALISING OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS AND

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 17.1 All forms and reports (assessors’ assessment forms and narrative reports,

supervisors’ reports, summary reports, and FHDC reports) are submitted to the HFA or faculty officer responsible for higher degree studies.

17.2 In addition to the submission of the final minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis, and except where faculties exempt students from this, students must have submitted to their supervisor evidence of, by the time the FHDC meets to consider the assessors’ reports of at least one piece of work in a format suitable for submission to a peer reviewed publication, with a view to possible publication,

52

SHDC.125/2019(3)

for masters students and two pieces of work in a format suitable for submission to a peer reviewed publication, with a view to possible publication, for doctoral candidates stemming from the study.

17.3 The FHDC meets to review the results and assessment reports of all masters’ and doctoral candidates, as well as the supervisor certification that the proposed corrections have been done. All master’s results (including coursework master’s) are finalised at this level, approved by Faculty Board and submitted to the SHDC for noting.

17.4 For doctoral candidates, all the relevant documentation (assessment forms, narrative reports, supervisor reports, summary reports, FHDC reports and certification that corrections have been done) serves at SHDC for approval, after which the Senate receives the results for noting.

17.5 After final acceptance of the minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis for graduation purposes, a number of bound copies (corrected according to the decisions of the relevant assessment committee) equal to the number of assessors and supervisor(s) that requests such copies , plus the final version in an approved electronic format (single PDF file), with metadata in the properties file together with supplementary files (images, sound, etc.) that are an integral part of the thesis or dissertation or minor dissertation, but not part of the full text thesis or dissertation or minor dissertation must be submitted by the candidate to the Faculty before the finalisation of the programme of the applicable graduation ceremony. No candidate’s name may be included in the programme for the ceremony unless the Faculty has verified in writing that these requirements have been met in full.

17.6 Together with the electronic copy, the candidate must submit written confirmation stating that the content of the electronic copy is a true version of the finally approved minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis.

17.7 Under the guidance of the supervisor, the candidate must provide at least three, but not more than six, internationally standardised keywords in English. Access to the international list of keywords is available in the University Library and Information Centre.

17.8 The final bound copies, as determined in 17.5, must be bound in artificial leather with the title of the minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis and the candidate’s initials and surname printed on the cover and spine.

17.9 A doctoral candidate must also submit an abbreviated biography and a laudation, in the required format and approved by the supervisor, when submitting the finally corrected copies of the thesis to the faculty, for uptake in the graduation programme.

17.10 After all results/outcomes have been finalised, the HFA submits the electronic copy together with supplementary files (images, sound, etc.) that are an integral part of the thesis or dissertation or minor dissertation, but not part of the full text thesis or dissertation or minor dissertation, to the Institutional repository, UJDigispace. The electronic copy is uploaded in UJDigispace for web access.

17.11 All minor dissertations, dissertations or theses, regardless of format must be accompanied by a completed UJLIC minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis final submission form signed by both the candidate and the supervisor. (See the form listed in the Appendix.)

17.12 The SHDC may, on the recommendation of the Executive Dean of the faculty concerned or the DVC (responsible for Postgraduate Studies), grant a confidentiality classification of two years to the completed minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis, as stipulated in the University’s Policy on Intellectual Property, meaning a delay in the public display of the minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis. This should be clearly stated on the UJLIC submission

53

SHDC.125/2019(3)

form. 17.13 A candidate will not be deemed to have completed the requirements for

conferment of the degree if the final corrected electronic copy of the minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis has not been submitted to the relevant HFA prior to the graduation ceremony and closure of the graduation list of the forthcoming graduation ceremony. Where this is a requirement printed and bound copies must be supplied as well.

17.14 Any master’s or doctoral degree can be awarded only after the successful completion of every requirement of each component of the qualification as determined by the relevant faculty regulations.

17.15 Appropriate feedback must be given to all assessors once the final outcome has been approved.

17.16 The documents used to give effect to this policy must be as near as may be in accordance with the forms and documents listed in Appendix I.

54

SHDC.125/2019(3)

Note: All forms and numbers should be supplied electronically and links included here

Forms and documents pertaining to the commencement phase Supervisor Student Agreement

Forms and documents pertaining to the study phase Student Progress Report Form Application for Change of Title Form Application for Approved Interruption Putting Study in Abeyance Form Application for Change of Supervisor Form Application for Extension of HD Studies Form

Forms and documents pertaining to the pre-assessment phase Nomination of Assessors and Non-assessing Chair Form Faculty Covering Letter for Appointment of Assessor Acceptance of Appointment as Assessor Form

Forms and documents pertaining to the submission for assessment phase Permission to Submit (Minor) Dissertation/Thesis for Assessment Affidavit – M and D Submission for Assessment

Forms and documents pertaining to the dispatching of documents to assessors Faculty Covering Letter to Assessor for Assessment of HD Study Guidelines for Assessment:

Guidelines for the Assessment of a Minor Dissertation Guidelines for the Assessment of a Dissertation Guidelines for the Assessment of a Thesis

Assessment Report Forms: Assessment Report Form – Doctoral Thesis Assessment Report Form – Dissertation Assessment Report Form – Minor-dissertation

Forms and documents pertaining to the internal finalisation of assessment results Internal Finalisation Report Forms:

Finalisation Report Form – Doctoral Thesis Finalisation Report Form – Dissertation Finalisation Report Form – Minor- dissertation

Faculty Summary Assessment Report Forms: Faculty Summary Assessment Report Form – Doctoral Thesis Faculty Summary Assessment Report Form – Dissertation Faculty Summary Assessment Report Form – Minor Dissertation Faculty Letter to Candidate after SHDC Approval

Forms and documents pertaining to the post-assessment phase Permission to Submit Finally Corrected (Minor) Dissertation/Thesis Certification of Finally Submitted Copies Form UJDigispace Form

APPENDIX 1 - Forms and Documents

55

SHDC.125/2019(3)

APPENDIX 2 – Flow Diagram for Resolving Outcomes for Master’s Qualifications

56

SHDC.125/2019(3)

57

SHDC.125/2019(3)